Basic assumptions we make, part 1: The world is a fair place

[JustMyron]

I find it really interesting that some people have these foundational assumptions (D M would call them "metaphysical truths", I think) which they assume must be (a) true and (b) things everyone agrees on. Like, for someone who has only ever lived in a religious environment, the idea that God might just not exist doesn't even occur to them. They assume that everyone takes the existence of God for granted, and when someone comes up and says "I don't believe in God"... it's just inconcievable.

There are other things that are like this too. Some take it for granted that any claim regarding reality requires physical material evidence, while others don't. As I understand it (although this may be urban legend), the Wright brothers were flying around their field for a few years before very many people took notice of it at all, because to most people it was inconcievable that people could fly. People who hadn't read philosophy or thought about things like hallucination and psychosis very much were blown away when they first saw The Matrix, because the possibility simply hadn't occurred to them that their "reality" might not actually be real

When you talk to someone who holds different foundational assumptions about things than you do, you can find yourself "talking past" them - they assume you can't really mean what it sounds like you just said, because... well, nobody would think that - and so they come up with an alternate meaning to what you said that fits within their preconceived idea of what it's possible for people to think, and you end up going "no, I didn't say that! I said this!. Yes, of course I'm serious. No, I'm not an idiot, and I'm not insane. Here's how it works..."

It can be hard to detect these assumptions, because until someone shows you a different way of thinking, you don't know you're assuming anything, and you can't tell people that you are. You're just... living, in the world as it is. If someone were to ask someone who took it as a foundational truth that God exists whether s/he believed God existed, they would at first have difficulty understanding the question, even though it's a simple question.

I think I've found another foundational truth, that some people take for granted, as exemplified in the following quote:

All receive their just reward, jetson.  The guilty and the innocent.  That's why there must be another "place", a place we cannot see, where all is made right in the end.  Your own innate sense of justice demands it.

The unquestioned assumption here is: The world is a fair place.

QM made the same basic assumption, in this post:

Humans turn the other cheek in expectation of the righteous judgement of God. If there were no forthcoming judgement of sinners then turning the cheek itself would be sinful, because you would be letting evil behavior receive all the blessings of righteous behavior.

God doesn't tell us to ignore the desire for justice in us, but tells us to reserve it and wait patiently because He will reconcile to Himself all things.

If everyone including God were forever turning the other cheek, then evil would be forever corrupting everyone and everything, that is a hellish existence that God is gloriously restricting through the redemption of the world.

To QM, if the world isn't a fair place, it's "a hellish existence". The idea that anyone would suggest that life isn't fair is... well, just out of the range of possibility for him, apparently. I tried to get it across to him, but he insisted that when I said "forgive someone" I meant "defer punishment and let someone else (God) take care of it". Because letting things go unpunished is just... impossible. Like if God didn't exist, or water flowed uphill.

But, thought experiment: what if life isn't fair (or at least isn't guaranteed to be fair)? That is, what if the fairytales we're told from the cradle aren't true, and it is entirely possible for the bad guys to win? Would it really be that hellish existence where evil rules? Just because bad guys can win, does that mean they will and everything collapses into some post-apocalyptic nightmare? What would the world look like, if evil behaviour sometimes went completely unpunished?

I think the world would look like pretty much what it looks like now. Bad things happening to good people, and good things happening to bad people, in a fairly random way that bears no apparent relation to how good or bad they have been. The sun and the rain (and HIV and mental retardation and car accidents and lucking in to good jobs and all kinds of other things) happening to people without regard to whether they were nice to their neighbor or cheated on their wife. Is that hell? No, it's just life.

So, what would that mean for you?

For one, it would mean you could (possibly) get away with some really evil sh*t. You could go rape and murder your daughter, and maybe, just maybe, you'd get away with it. The only one who would know might, in the end, turn out to be you.

But another thing it would mean, is that if you f**k someone else's life up, there's nobody who will make it right for you. You don't have the luxury of saying that something you did wrong last year is going to be OK, because God will punish you and reward the person you've wronged so it all turns out equal in the end. Making things equal, as best you can, is now on you. So, knowing that if you f**k it up there's nobody to set things right, are you really going to go do a bunch of crap to other people? If so, then David's assertion above that your sense of justice makes demands on you isn't true, is it? And QM's idea that we have to reserve the results of our sense of justice for God so that we can forgive is wrong too, then, for you, because you have no sense of justice.

What this tells us is that, aside from random events for which nobody can be either praised or blamed, the only way a world where people can (possibly) get away with mistreating other people = hell is if, when given the opportunity, you would go rape your daughter.

If we have that innate sense of justice that David and QM insist we have, then even without heaven, things won't go to hell. Since we value fairness, we will all, without being asked or forced, take action to correct unfairnesses we see in society, condemn things we think are evil, and reward things we think are good. And so, even though some people slip through the cracks, are missed by the not-so-all-seeing eye of their neighbors, the system doesn't collapse, and we do all get by. And overall, it's pretty good. Far from perfect, but really, not bad.

For those of you who share QM and David's assumption that it is unacceptable for anything to be unfair, in the end (and so there must be an afterlife where it all gets set right, because clearly there are unfair things that happen): The very sense of justice and fairness which forces you to conclude that there must be an afterlife is the same one that keeps this earth from being a hellscape, even if there is no afterlife.

Congratulations, those of you with such a strong sense of right and wrong that you just can't bear the thought that bad things might go unpunished - you are responsible for much of the goodness in the world.

And that ^ is how it is possible to really, truly, believe that life isn't fair.  

[hypsell]

I agree with lots of what you said here,but I see it from a different angle,not worrying so much about God.There are quite a few ways to view the world and reality,and I believe there are some superior to those used by anybody on this board,including myself.I've been exposed to such ideas and some of what they convey does not fit well into the english language so I have difficulty expressing them,yet I have observed them.Sorry to sound confusing and wish I could cleary express myself about this.

[JustMyron]

I agree with lots of what you said here,but I see it from a different angle,not worrying so much about God.There are quite a few ways to view the world and reality,and I believe there are some superior to those used by anybody on this board,including myself.I've been exposed to such ideas and some of what they convey does not fit well into the english language so I have difficulty expressing them,yet I have observed them.Sorry to sound confusing and wish I could cleary express myself about this.

You don't have to describe these ways, but do they have names I could google? Web links that might help?

[hypsell]

Since making the post I tried googling,no luck.Try "ilumnita"(not iluminata!).All you'll find is in spanish and even translated might do little good.It was someone's nickname I knew years ago.To me this name brings intelligent ideas that just don't go well into any language I know.An intelligence only partly communicated thru speech,more like communication thru empathy,if that makes any sense.
It is frustrating trying to express nonverbal ideas with a computer.It's hard enough in person.
It's probably best not to worry much about it,at least for now.Talking to people from simple,peaceful cultures might help,but I can't promise it would.

[rickymooston]

I have issues with your examples below but what you are talking about is something I've been thinking about for a very long time with respect to people communicating.

Often people are on different pages using words in different ways and/or making conlcusions based on unspoken premises that the other person is unaware of.

I find it really interesting that some people have these foundational assumptions (D M would call them "metaphysical truths", I think) which they assume must be (a) true and (b) things everyone agrees on. Like, for someone who has only ever lived in a religious environment, the idea that God might just not exist doesn't even occur to them. They assume that everyone takes the existence of God for granted, and when someone comes up and says "I don't believe in God"... it's just inconcievable.

Given that God is not directly observable, I suspect every such society would still have people disbelieving in God.

The Matrix, because the possibility simply hadn't occurred to them that their "reality" might not actually be real

Yes, that was an interesting aspect of the movie!!! Some philosophers have in fact questioned whether our reality is real.   Chuang-tzi had his famous butterfly dream where he realized he didn't know whether he was a human dreaming or a butterfly dreaming. Philip K. Dick's stories often question appearances as does the Twilight Zone.

When you talk to someone who holds different foundational assumptions about things than you do, you can find yourself "talking past" them

Most of the time, you and that other person don't realize the assumption is there. You make deductions on the assumption that tey don't understand. On this point, I think your post is highly karma worthy.

Assumptions are a key in communication. +1

- they assume you can't really mean what it sounds like you just said, because... well, nobody would think that - and so they come up with an alternate meaning to what you said that fits within their preconceived idea of what it's possible for people to think, and you end up going "no, I didn't say that! I said this!. Yes, of course I'm serious. No, I'm not an idiot, and I'm not insane. Here's how it works..."

Again, often they simply don't understand how you reached your conclusions because you mkae derived conclusions. People don't know each others assumptions.
It can be hard to detect these assumptions, because until someone shows you a different way of thinking, you don't know you're assuming anything, and you can't tell people that you are. You're just... living, in the world as it is. If someone were to ask someone who took it as a foundational truth that God exists whether s/he believed God existed, they would at first have difficulty understanding the question, even though it's a simple question.

I think I've found another foundational truth, that some people take for granted, as exemplified in the following quote:

All receive their just reward, jetson.  The guilty and the innocent.  That's why there must be another "place", a place we cannot see, where all is made right in the end.  Your own innate sense of justice demands it.

The unquestioned assumption here is: The world is a fair place.

The assumption is not "the word is a fair place" but that most ordinary people believe it should be fair. Everybody knows the world is unfair but we assume others value fairness.

QM made the same basic assumption, in this post:

Humans turn the other cheek in expectation of the righteous judgement of God. If there were no forthcoming judgement of sinners then turning the cheek itself would be sinful, because you would be letting evil behavior receive all the blessings of righteous behavior.

God doesn't tell us to ignore the desire for justice in us, but tells us to reserve it and wait patiently because He will reconcile to Himself all things.

If everyone including God were forever turning the other cheek, then evil would be forever corrupting everyone and everything, that is a hellish existence that God is gloriously restricting through the redemption of the world.

To QM, if the world isn't a fair place, it's "a hellish existence". The idea that anyone would suggest that life isn't fair is... well, just out of the range of possibility for him, apparently. I tried to get it across to him, but he insisted that when I said "forgive someone" I meant "defer punishment and let someone else (God) take care of it". Because letting things go unpunished is just... impossible. Like if God didn't exist, or water flowed uphill.

I don't think you understood his meaning. He is aware people disbelieve in God. He is assuming the world is unfair because of men's sin. The can be justified with observation. We can observe greed and other forces in action. What he is assuming is that fairness on some level is "right" and that people believe it should be.


He has to be taken in context. He has discussed slavery being ok on so,e levls.

But, thought experiment: what if life isn't fair (or at least isn't guaranteed to be fair)? That is, what if the fairytales we're told from the cradle aren't true, and it is entirely possible for the bad guys to win?

That wpuld be consistent with QM's world view. This world is a tainted one and he looks forward to the kingdom to come. Its unfairness is a given and this is discribed all over the bible.

Would it really be that hellish existence where evil rules? Just because bad guys can win, does that mean they will and everything collapses into some post-apocalyptic nightmare? What would the world look like, if evil behaviour sometimes went completely unpunished?

Yes!!! And in QM's view, the world would look like our sin tainted world.

I think the world would look like pretty much what it looks like now. Bad things happening to good people, and good things happening to bad people, in a fairly random way that bears no apparent relation to how good or bad they have been.

This is what Christian's think too!!! If you believe otherwise, you really don't know their gospel and the idea of original sin.

We are not of this world. Jesus Kingdom is the next one to come.

[rickymooston]

The doctrine of original sin says that we live in a sinful unfair world where evil people often win. In the world to come, Jesus will make it right.

Your examples seem to strawman QM's beliefs completely.

He is perfectly aware of the unfairness in the world and considers it a hellish existance. There is a reason Christians claim to be not of this world and the salt of the earth.

What they do believe is perhaps on some level most people have a sense of what fairness means.

[QuestionMark]

I think you did more than I could do to explain my opinion :)

[JustMyron]

I think you did more than I could do to explain my opinion :)

Did I get it right? Feel free to correct anything if I've misrepresented you.

[QuestionMark]

I think Ricky already did.

I don't think the world is a fair place, I think the world is full of sin and sin is never fair, and God is going to reconcile all of it in the last judgment.

[Night Train]

I think JustMyron is right. A universe in which God "reconciles" everything at the end is a fair universe, ultimately. It's like a movie in which the good guys suffer some reverses, but triumph in the end.

Ben

[QuestionMark]

Oh, I see.

Ok. That is a strange way to put it though.

So all you're saying is that you don't think the universe is ultimately fair and I do? Wasn't that obvious?

[rickymooston]

I think JustMyron is right. A universe in which God "reconciles" everything at the end is a fair universe, ultimately. It's like a movie in which the good guys suffer some reverses, but triumph in the end.

That wasn't clear to me on the first reading. However, I admit, he has a tendency to begin a long post apparently saying one thing and to end it saying something quite different. When he does this, I find replying to his posts drives me insane.

Your interpretation of the end of his post does however make sense but it doesn't explain the beginning or the middle of his post.

I wish JM could do this.

Make an initial sentence that summarizes what he really wants to say, including the existance of exceptions.

Then proceed to develop it.

Then wrap up with a conclusion.


I say this but I'm not the best writer myself either. .

[Night Train]

Oh, I see.

Ok. That is a strange way to put it though.

So all you're saying is that you don't think the universe is ultimately fair and I do? Wasn't that obvious?

I was responding to your endorsement of RickyMoosten's post, in which he said that Christians know that the world is unfair. But that's not what most Christians of my acquaintance believe. According to their cosmology, the state of the world is the result of man's fallen, sinful nature and we're simply getting what we deserve. What do you call it when people get what they deserve? Fairness.

The point that is getting lost in the back-and-forth is that most people (not just Christians) believe that the universe can be explained by a narrative, and that narrative has a moral. One of the reasons that so many people find the scientific view of the  universe uncongenial is that it simply doesn't lend itself to narratives.

Ben

[QuestionMark]

I think that science has a place, and its place is not to ask 'why' questions, only how. Which is why I don't worship scientists like many of the godless do. I know where meaning comes from, it only comes from a higher authority. Science can't tell you why to live or how to live, except that it has already been given the purpose ... the end.

I think you guys are using a good word too, narrative.

So you think that most Christians believe the world is fair and people get what they deserve? Because that's not a Christian teaching, it's a far east belief, and usually extends into karma.

If people get what they deserve on earth then there's no point in an afterlife(of blessed reward or cursed penalty) or a final judgment(in which the wrongs are righted) or any of the distinctive parts of the Christian religion.

[JustMyron]

So you think that most Christians believe the world is fair and people get what they deserve? Because that's not a Christian teaching, it's a far east belief, and usually extends into karma.

If people get what they deserve on earth then there's no point in an afterlife(of blessed reward or cursed penalty) or a final judgment(in which the wrongs are righted) or any of the distinctive parts of the Christian religion.

I didn't say you thought people got what they deserve on earth, just that you thought they got what they deserve, eventually. How many times have you said that God is just? Of course you've also said he's merciful and forgiving and that's a contradiction, but you don't acknowledge the contradiction, so...

And: Karma serves the same function as heaven. It's a belief that whatever is wrong in this life will be put right after you die (and are either reincarnated or rewarded/punished in the afterlife). Either way, it's a supposition that unfairness during your life doesn't mean things are ultimately unfair.

Perhaps "the world is a fair place" wasn't a great title - maybe "things ultimately turn out to be fair" would have been better.

[QuestionMark]

I didn't say you thought people got what they deserve on earth, just that you thought they got what they deserve, eventually. How many times have you said that God is just? Of course you've also said he's merciful and forgiving and that's a contradiction, but you don't acknowledge the contradiction, so...

What do you mean I don't acknowledge the contradiction? The contradiction is the POINT of the gospel. God is just, so to forgive injustice something else has to come into the picture. That's Jesus, at the cross as a demonstration of God's righteousness, justice is preserved because the one who we all sin against is taking the suffering in Himself, the economy of justice is satisfied when the wrath of God against sin is poured out.

Perhaps "the world is a fair place" wasn't a great title - maybe "things ultimately turn out to be fair" would have been better.

Well it's not an unquestioned assumption, I'm convinced of it. As I said above, the cross is the point of it all.

[rickymooston]

I was responding to your endorsement of RickyMoosten's post, in which he said that Christians know that the world is unfair. But that's not what most Christians of my acquaintance believe. According to their cosmology, the state of the world is the result of man's fallen, sinful nature and we're simply getting what we deserve. What do you call it when people get what they deserve? Fairness.

Lol. Good point. +1

But, they think its a bad unhappy place none the less. ;).

The point that is getting lost in the back-and-forth is that most people (not just Christians) believe that the universe can be explained by a narrative, and that narrative has a moral.

Most people is a dangerous assumption. 

One of the reasons that so many people find the scientific view of the  universe uncongenial is that it simply doesn't lend itself to narratives.

Well if you mean the scientific view without deism or theism, I might agree. Things happen. However, you can still have "karma"; events today are caused by what other people did yesterday. You just don'tget the supernatural version.

[rickymooston]

I didn't say you thought people got what they deserve on earth, just that you thought they got what they deserve, eventually.

IMO, for what it is worth, this would have been clearer if you said it earlier in your post. Perhaps I'm illiterate but sometimes you seem to have conversations with yourself in your posts.

Quote from Toast Masters
1. Tell them what you are going to say; one sentence summary.
2. Say it.
3. Tell them what you said.


What you seem to do is, say something generally true. In this case, you even invoked QM's name.
Ramble about .
Add the exception as an after thought.
It means that it is impossible to respond to your posts on a point by point basis.

[Codswallop]

I think--if I can wade through the verbiage--that Myron's original point (also obscured by a little too much introductory throat-clearing, IMO) is an excellent one: many people are positively offended by the suggestion that the Universe may not be the sort of place where evil is punished and good rewarded. I think this is the source of a lot of the vehemence in the reactions of even casual believers when they encounter a non-theist in casual conversation.

The unconscious assumption that we get what's coming to us is deeply ingrained in our culture--most cultures, actually--as well as our art and literature, and it lives at the heart of the born-again's world view. The latter take great comfort in all that "blessed are the mourners, for they shall be comforted" mentality. Don't worry if your life is s**tty, because you're saved, so all your wrongs will be redressed, Jesus is preparing a place for you, in my father's house are many mansions, etc. And the thieves and murderers and agnostics and Democrats will get theirs someday as well.

The idea that it may not actually be like this is just intolerable to a significant segment of society.

[JustMyron]

I didn't say you thought people got what they deserve on earth, just that you thought they got what they deserve, eventually. How many times have you said that God is just? Of course you've also said he's merciful and forgiving and that's a contradiction, but you don't acknowledge the contradiction, so...

What do you mean I don't acknowledge the contradiction? The contradiction is the POINT of the gospel. God is just, so to forgive injustice something else has to come into the picture. That's Jesus, at the cross as a demonstration of God's righteousness, justice is preserved because the one who we all sin against is taking the suffering in Himself, the economy of justice is satisfied when the wrath of God against sin is poured out.

Killing Jesus was unfair to Jesus, and unfair to the sinners. What would have been fair was if Jesus' good behaviour was rewarded, and the sinners' bad behaviour was punished. But God did the opposite, apparently.

[JustMyron]

Thank you, Cods. That was much more concise than mine. It was late, I was rambling.

(And yes, Ricky, I heard you saying the same)

+1 to both of you.

Can we discuss Cods' post? Because that's what I was getting at.

[Captain Luke]

I was rambling.

*cough* 

[QuestionMark]

Killing Jesus was unfair to Jesus, and unfair to the sinners. What would have been fair was if Jesus' good behaviour was rewarded, and the sinners' bad behaviour was punished. But God did the opposite, apparently.

Yes, God willingly took the burden upon Himself in selfless love. It wasn't fair that He should be insulted as He was, and it wasn't fair that we should be blessed though we sin. It's like the judge of our court case payed our fines, then took us home and adopted us.

Behold what manner of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called sons of God.

[JustMyron]

Killing Jesus was unfair to Jesus, and unfair to the sinners. What would have been fair was if Jesus' good behaviour was rewarded, and the sinners' bad behaviour was punished. But God did the opposite, apparently.

Yes, God willingly took the burden upon Himself in selfless love. It wasn't fair that He should be insulted as He was, and it wasn't fair that we should be blessed though we sin. It's like the judge of our court case payed our fines, then took us home and adopted us.

Behold what manner of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called sons of God.

But you said it was just. It is not just for someone to pay a fine for someone else. There is a very simple, obvious conflict between justice and mercy/forgiveness. You can't have it both ways.

[QuestionMark]

But you said it was just. It is not just for someone to pay a fine for someone else. There is a very simple, obvious conflict between justice and mercy/forgiveness. You can't have it both ways.

Justice is defined by the Law, and God is the lawgiver. C.S. Lewis provides a parallel on this when Aslan talks about the deep magic of Narnia which the Witch didn't know about. The deep magic spoke of self sacrifice being a more powerful implication of what justice is than simply carrying out execution.

The ultimate purpose of justice, or actually the definition of justice is the character of God. If we talk about justice in a universe made by God but we ignore God then we have made a serious mistake. It is God's purpose to share His personality with those He has made in His image for this reason. So if God were unable in His own universe to be Himself, reveal Himself, and be recognized as righteous(just) then it just wouldn't make sense.

When I say that mercy is unjust(I am curious to know if you actually borrowed this from me subconsciously because I use it so often) I'm trying to highlight two apparently contradictory things so that people get the gravity of justice and the gravity of mercy without losing one or the other. I'm ok with talking about it as contradictory even though it's not.

God as the lawgiver has revealed His principles in rules, but the rules are only descriptive terms not the object itself. The Law, as Jesus and the Apostles make clear, is not the end and the fulfillment of righteousness. The Law was given through Moses but grace and truth through Jesus, and this truth is that God as the Lawgiver of the universe is more pleased to honor the sacrifice of His Son than to pursue a more primitive sense of justice.

And Myron you're clever, if you actually think about this you'll see some of the coolest things in God's plan. Eternal life is inaccessible to humans by works of merit or the law, because eternal life is something that only God should have. So something like death is not of itself evil(an animal could die with no injustice because animals are not moral beings). The death of a man is evil because man is made in God's image. The corruption of a man's dignity, or the violence against his character or possessions are evil because they are insults against God.

The Bible indicates that every form of justice among interactions between men is only valid because men are made in God's image. Perhaps this is why you think that we are no different than rocks or animals(though I think the whole lot of you who hold this pretense are just spouting nonsense). Ultimately every sin is against God, and if God sees fit to forgive then THAT is perfect justice, because the immoral action has not gone without weight or notice but God Himself bore the weight instead of pouring it out on the one who committed themselves to evil.

[JustMyron]

I was rambling.

*cough* 

Fine, +1 for the trojan you installed on my computer earlier...

[Codswallop]

All this talk of God's "justice" ignores the entirely unjust notion of humanity's supposedly fallen nature, specifically the idea that Adam's sin tarnishes his progeny for all time. This travesty renders any subsequent discussion of "God's justice" pointless.

[JustMyron]

But you said it was just. It is not just for someone to pay a fine for someone else. There is a very simple, obvious conflict between justice and mercy/forgiveness. You can't have it both ways.

Justice is defined by the Law, and God is the lawgiver.

Any "lawgiver" (either someone who writes legislation, or a judge) would be removed from his or her position of authority if s/he hated all offenders so much that s/he had to kill someone, anyone, even if it meant killing an innocent person.

I remember the Virginia Tech massacre. The guy who did that surely suffered injustice, from being bullied and excluded and whatnot. And it made him mad and frustrated, and justifiably so. And then he went and killed a bunch of innocent people. Not OK. Understandable, sure, but not in any way "just" or "good".

Supposedly, God is so offended by sin that he just can't stand it, can't have it in his presence, and HAS to see some form of retribution visited on someone, even if it means killing his innocent son. Any warm body will do, so long as there's someone he can murder wrathfully to express his anger at how badly everyone has messed things up. Oh, wait, that's not true, any warm body won't do, will it? For some reason that is not entirely clear (unless you step outside of the Christian narrative and look at historical precedents of animal sacrifice to appease God) the person who died had to be innocent. From the perspective of either justice or mercy, innocent death makes no sense at all, but whatever, if it helps Christianity to be sold to pagans, good enough.

You say that Jesus sacrifice was noble, and it was, in the same way the teacher who put himself in the line of fire at Virginia tech to protect his students made a noble sacrifice. But that doesn't mean that the Virginia tech. shooter was OK to shoot the teacher. Yes, he wanted justice, and he was wrathful and all. But killing innocent people wouldn't get him any closer to justice, nor would it do so for God. It might make him (God) feel better, I suppose, if any any warm body will do so long as he gets to kill someone. But calling that good is sick.

I think there's a fairly reasonable case for saying God values mercy over justice, based on the narrative of Jesus death. I might explain why I think so, in another thread, if people are interested. But basically when people use the bible to justify being merciful and kind and caring towards others, I have no objection. But when you start holding the sacrificial slaughter of an innocent man to satiate a wrathful God up as an example of perfect justice, it fails miserably.

As for the idea that God is good because he makes the law which defines what good means so he can say, do or be whatever he wants and that's good... that's just plain messed up. By that logic, anything you think God did becomes good in your eyes. There is no external standard, no error checking. Even if something God did appears sick and twisted to you, if you believe that God really did it, then you conclude that you are sick and twisted for not understanding how it's good, and push and push and push yourself until your conscience conforms to what you have convinced yourself it has to. You twist your own sense of justice around to make it an example of perfect justice when God kills his innocent son.

[QuestionMark]

Any "lawgiver" (either someone who writes legislation, or a judge) would be removed from his or her position of authority if s/he hated all offenders so much that s/he had to kill someone, anyone, even if it meant killing an innocent person.

I didn't read the rest of your post.

If someone kidnapped and raped a member of your family, then killed the immediate witnesses, and then lied about it to all the authorities while receiving the benefits of an honest and good judge, but many years later the evidence were found and they were convicted, you're saying there's no reason to hate that person?

Jesus wasn't killed unwillingly, have you read the gospels?

[JustMyron]

Any "lawgiver" (either someone who writes legislation, or a judge) would be removed from his or her position of authority if s/he hated all offenders so much that s/he had to kill someone, anyone, even if it meant killing an innocent person.

I didn't read the rest of your post.

Ditto. Have a nice day.  

###

EDIT: I reconsidered, and read your post. Do unto others... right?

Hating people for things isn't helpful. Hating someone who has done something wrong won't undo what they did, it will just poison your life and make you more likely to do morally reprehensible things to others.

If someone killed people I cared about, my main concern wouldn't be hating them and seeking retribution. I would want to understand why they did it, and see if I could make changes in how society works so that other people are less likely to do the same in future.